- (1.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued before us that since the very issue as to whether lawyers can represent their clients in the fact scenario in the present case is sub judice in the Supreme Court, some intermediate course of conduct should have been followed instead of dismissing the petition.
(2.) The very Bombay High Court judgment referred to itself states that a professional lawyer may represent the petitioner, and not merely an employee of the company, provided he does not take more than a day to submit his arguments. We have also been informed that at present the Bombay view is opposite of the Delhi and Punjab and Haryana views.
(3.) Be that as it may, having heard Mr. Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel for the respondent, we feel that, in the interest of justice, what has been done by the Bombay High Court in the order referred to, as well our own order dated 18.09.2015 in State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. KingFisher Airlines Ltd. And Ors., we allow a professional lawyer to appear on behalf of the petitioner and allow him to present an oral argument, which shall not last beyond one day. We are informed that the matter is fixed for hearing on 31.08.2018. On this date, the In-House Committee will allow the said lawyer to present their case, which will not spill over beyond that date.;